India’s economic ascent has been widely celebrated, but questions around governance, equity and institutional effectiveness continue to persist. In a conversation with Businessworld, Rajeev Budhiraja discusses The Governance Gap: Unlocking India’s Superpower Potential, a data-driven book authored by his late father, Shashi Budhiraja. Drawing on decades of research, public policy analysis and global comparisons, the book examines why India’s democratic strength and economic scale have not translated into commensurate social outcomes. The discussion spans cosmetic versus substantive reforms, public-private partnerships, digital governance, inequality, corruption and the urgent need for structural change across agriculture, education and political funding.
Your book is extremely data-driven and factual. Why write this book now, at this stage in India’s governance journey?
To clarify at the outset, this is my father’s book. Sadly, he passed away a little over three months ago, which is why I am representing him today.
While going through his papers, I discovered articles dating back to the mid-1990s on the state of bureaucracy, education and governance. His interest in governance went back decades. He had deep faith in India and was firmly committed to its progress, but one question he consistently asked was: how much better can India do?
He believed governance is the fulcrum that will propel India to the next stage of development. The book rests on two fundamental platforms. First, India is a vibrant democracy with free elections and smooth transitions of power, but what has this delivered in terms of quality and dignity of life for the average Indian? There is a gap between democratic processes and governance outcomes.
Second, he wanted to change the narrative. India has done well economically. We are now the fourth-largest economy and growing at over 6 percent. But should we be complacent, or should we be deeply concerned about public health, primary education and social indicators, especially in rural India? The gap between India’s potential and performance today is largely a governance gap.
Governance is often criticised for being cosmetic or performative. Where do you see this gap between optics and real governance?
We see examples of both. Take GST. It is a substantive reform. Before GST, trucks spent nearly 60 percent of their time waiting. After GST, logistics improved, cargo moved faster and the economy benefited. That is real reform.
On the cosmetic side, consider rural employment schemes. MGNREGA committed 100 days of employment. The new scheme promises 125 days. But in reality, MGNREGA delivers only around 50 days of employment. So the question is whether we should focus on improving execution from 50 to 100 days or merely changing the optics from 100 to 125 days.
Are there other reforms that are often projected as groundbreaking but fail on the ground?
Public-private partnerships are one such area. India’s needs are massive. The government cannot do it alone and the private sector cannot do it alone. We need collaboration across government, private sector, academia and R&D.
There are global examples like Israel, which transformed itself into an agri-tech leader despite being a desert state. In India, PPPs have not delivered their full potential because risks are not allocated appropriately, disputes arise, contracts get renegotiated and implementation falters.
PPPs work where outcomes are clear and demand is predictable, such as infrastructure. They do not work as well in areas like public health. Even where they should work, India’s execution has been weak.
Your book is structured thematically rather than linearly. Why did you choose this format?
The book has two parts. The first focuses on institutions of governance such as the legislature, parliamentary systems and rule of law. The second examines how these institutions perform in key sectors like agriculture, public health and education.
Each chapter could easily be a book in itself. The challenge was to create a cohesive narrative while doing justice to each subject. There are gaps. For instance, we did not include media as an institution of governance, nor manufacturing in implementation. But the intent was to present a holistic picture of governance in India.
Can we expect a second volume to address these gaps?
It is too early to say. We are currently absorbing feedback and inputs from readers and well-wishers. All those comments are being noted and we will evaluate the way forward in due course.
Does the widening gap between the haves and have-nots ultimately come down to governance?
This is a global phenomenon. The state today is stretched and citizens have very high expectations. Those with access to policymakers, legal resources and professional advisors naturally benefit more. That is inherent in capitalist systems.
The question is how we reduce inequality. Time-bound approvals with penalties for delays can change behaviour. Simplifying and standardising laws so ordinary citizens can understand them is another critical step. Public dashboards with clear deliverables, judicial reforms and reducing pendency of cases, which currently stands at around 4.4 crore, are essential to make governance more equitable.
Has Digital India helped bridge this governance gap?
I would classify digital governance into three categories: success, failure and what I call a fudge.
UPI is a clear success. It is a global case study and has significantly reduced cash dependency. Aadhaar-linked payments in MGNREGA, however, created problems such as technical errors, mismatched records and delayed payments.
Then there are systems like public approval dashboards or velocity trackers. In some states, officials closed files before deadlines to avoid red flags, forcing applicants to reapply. So technology alone is not enough. Intent and accountability matter.
Is there any policy currently projected as positive but problematic in reality?
I would answer this differently. Corruption remains one of the biggest obstacles to governance. India ranks 96 out of 180 on the Corruption Perception Index, which is unacceptable for the fourth-largest economy.
Resources are limited. Wasting them through corruption is criminal. We have seen infrastructure collapse soon after completion. India spent decades and billions researching thorium-based energy, yet the first commercial product came from a foreign private player. We must make our limited resources work more efficiently.
If you had absolute policymaking power, what three governance reforms would you implement immediately?
First, political funding transparency. If elections cost around Rs 1 lakh crore and funding sources remain opaque, transparent regulation is impossible.
Second, fixing agriculture. It employs 40 percent of the population but contributes only 15 percent of GDP. This requires agri-technology, R&D and effective public-private collaboration. Improving agriculture will uplift rural India and reduce dependence on employment schemes.
Third, education. Primary education must be universal, secondary education must focus on vocational skills, and higher education must prioritise R&D and innovation. The India Skills Report shows that nearly half of our graduates are unemployable. This is a structural failure we must urgently address. |
